Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina Board of Agriculture’s Empirical Analysis
171 U.S. 345 · 1898
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 37 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 249 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2001 · most notably Jones v. Rath Packing Co. (1977), Simpson v. Shepard (1913)
13 federal appellate · 37 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 28 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Brown v. Maryland · Crutcher v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · Minnesota v. Barber · Plumley v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Woodruff v. Parham
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 249 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No state sliall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the receipts are found to average largely more than enough to pay the expenses, the presumption would be that the legislature would moderate the charge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The act of January 21, 1891 [Taws 1891, e. 9], must be regarded, then, as an act providing for the inspection of fertilizers and fertilizing materials in order to prevent the practice of imposition on the people of the state, and the charge of 25 cents per ton as intended merely to defray the cost of such inspection. It being competent for the state to pass laws of this character, does the requirement of inspection and payment of its cost bring the act into collision with the commercial power vested in Congress? Clearly, this cannot be so as to foreign eomjmerce, for clause 2 of section 10 of article 1 expressly recognizes the validity of state inspection laws, and allows the collection of the amounts necessary for their execution; and we think the same principle must apply to interstate commerce.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.